About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.
2018 Juristant Badge - MBHB_165
Juristat #4 Overall Rank

E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Contact the Docs


  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.
Juristat #8 Overall Rank


« CVC Substantive Preliminary Motion No. 2 to Deny Priority Benefit | Main | CVC Substantive Preliminary Motion No. 3 To Add Claims in ToolGen Patent »

July 06, 2021


That's the thing about "First to File" isn't it? If your priority date filing is speculative, and then you publish, and then you file PCT with a bulked-up disclosure, you can end up with nothing.

As you report:

"where a priority document is thin on experimental work and largely speculative, as seems to be the case here, priority can fall"

With First to File, the highest value work is not delivered by the litigator but rather by the entity doing the drafting and choosing the priority filing date.

But wait. Let's see what the EPO Board of Appeal has to say.

Wonderful summary; thank you foreign correspondents, whoever you are.


[This is f/k/a hardreaders BTW]

The comments to this entry are closed.

June 2024

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29